angel345 said:

Tremolina said:

I just can't help myself

I know , but starting a revolution? Perhaps you and Kate Bush can start one

But then on second thought

Dave1992 said:

I'm still lurking and reading and interested in the recording industry!

Ditto.

^ great! what do you want to know? did you guys read my thread about the ruling of the EU court of justice about the "webfilters" the music industry could censor the internet with?

Tremolina said:

^ great! what do you want to know? did you guys read my thread about the ruling of the EU court of justice about the "webfilters" the music industry could censor the internet with?

You posted the ruliing on the Prince Interview thread (the interview where he says he'd like to explore distributing music like before recorded music). The thread link takes me to a thread about Robert Sanchez's "1999" cover.

I skimmed the ruling, I'm a lawyer so it's not too hard to read, but I'm not knowledgeable about what this would mean for the music industry. I have a friend from law school who's the/an expert on "network neutrality" and copyright law - if he weren't so darned busy and important (he was recently senior advisor to the FTC) I'd like to ask him his thoughts on the music industry. He's not into music specifically, but I know that he'd have a lot of interesting things to say...

The thread link takes me to a thread about Robert Sanchez's "1999" cover.

Not Roger Sanchez again!! (it's an org glyph...)

http://prince.org/msg/8/371548

check that thread out artist 76

Lawd....

Roger has put a spell on the org...

Here is the article

EU High Court Rules Against Webfilters for Music, Videos etc.

[Edited 12/1/11 15:02pm]

And relating even more to this thread's topic:

This week a Dutch news organisation revealed a case of corruption at BUMA/STEMRA. Comparable to Ascap and the Harry Fox agency in the US, BUMA/STEMRA is the organisation in the Netherlands that is responsible for collecting public performance rights royalties (like radio, tv, bars, internet etc.) and mechanical royalties (cd's, lp's) for music copyright owners.

It appears that a board member of BUMA/STEMRA, Jochem Gerrits, who is also the owner of a music publishing company, is into some shady business, by using his position to collect royalties for himself. Dutch composer Melchior Rietveldt found out that a composition he had written (for a commercial against 'piracy' no less!) was used countless of times in cinemas across the country and had been copied on millions of DVD's. Rietveldt can possibly claim millions in royalties, but since 2007 BUMA/STEMRA has refused to collect them for him.

Pownews broadcasted a recording of a telephone conversation in which Gerrits offers Rietveldt to transfer the copyright of the composition to his publishing company. Saying he is closer to the fire, he would make it possible for Rietveldt to finally get paid. In return of 1/3 of the royalties. Gerrits has since stepped down as board member, but denies the accusations of his corruption (that is on record! ).

http://www.powned.tv/nieu...rrupt.html

http://www.powned.tv/over...temra.html

[Edited 12/1/11 15:51pm]

More relevant news coming from the lowlands this week. I talked before on this thread about the law in Holland that it's legal to make a copy of a song for private, personal use only, including a download for personal use from a filesharing network.

In return for this exemption to copyright, owners of music copyrights are paid royalties from the sale of blank Cd's, DVD's and cassettes. The current Dutch government wants to get rid of this system. At the request of the music and film industries it wants to prohibit downloading for personal use.

But, fortunately, we do not have a majority government at the moment in Holland and the majority in parliament does not appear to agree with the proposed change of law. At least, not for now.

Some parties do not want to change anything, others do not want to get rid of the current sytem but broaden it, and then again others say they agree, but only if it becomes a criminal offense also. The minister responsible wants to hold on to his plans, but so far he doesn't have enough support.

None of the parties really believes that it is possible to uphold the proposed law in practice, at least not at the expense of privacy and freedom of information of consumers. But, all of them do agree that a decent way of compensation for illegal filesharing must be found.

The question is which?

http://www.volkskrant.nl/...rbod.dhtml

[Edited 12/1/11 16:02pm]

Tremolina said:

And relating even more to this thread's topic:

This week a Dutch news organisation revealed a case of corruption at BUMA/STEMRA. Comparable to Ascap and the Harry Fox agency in the US, BUMA/STEMRA is the organisation in the Netherlands that is responsible for collecting public performance rights royalties (like radio, tv, bars, internet etc.) and mechanical royalties (cd's, lp's) for music copyright owners.

It appears that a board member of BUMA/STEMRA, Jochem Gerrits, who is also the owner of a music publishing company, is into some shady business, by using his position to collect royalties for himself. Dutch composer Melchior Rietveldt found out that a composition he had written (for a commercial against 'piracy' no less!) was used countless of times in cinemas across the country and had been copied on millions of DVD's. Rietveldt can possibly claim millions in royalties, but since 2007 BUMA/STEMRA has refused to collect them for him.

Pownews broadcasted a recording of a telephone conversation in which Gerrits offers Rietveldt to transfer the copyright of the composition to his publishing company. Saying he is closer to the fire, he would make it possible for Rietveldt to finally get paid. In return of 1/3 of the royalties. Gerrits has since stepped down as board member, but denies the accusations of his corruption (that is on record! ).

http://www.powned.tv/nieu...rrupt.html

http://www.powned.tv/over...temra.html

[Edited 12/1/11 15:51pm]

Rogues are everywhere, unfortunately.

angel345 said:

Tremolina said:

And relating even more to this thread's topic:

This week a Dutch news organisation revealed a case of corruption at BUMA/STEMRA. Comparable to Ascap and the Harry Fox agency in the US, BUMA/STEMRA is the organisation in the Netherlands that is responsible for collecting public performance rights royalties (like radio, tv, bars, internet etc.) and mechanical royalties (cd's, lp's) for music copyright owners.

It appears that a board member of BUMA/STEMRA, Jochem Gerrits, who is also the owner of a music publishing company, is into some shady business, by using his position to collect royalties for himself. Dutch composer Melchior Rietveldt found out that a composition he had written (for a commercial against 'piracy' no less!) was used countless of times in cinemas across the country and had been copied on millions of DVD's. Rietveldt can possibly claim millions in royalties, but since 2007 BUMA/STEMRA has refused to collect them for him.

Pownews broadcasted a recording of a telephone conversation in which Gerrits offers Rietveldt to transfer the copyright of the composition to his publishing company. Saying he is closer to the fire, he would make it possible for Rietveldt to finally get paid. In return of 1/3 of the royalties. Gerrits has since stepped down as board member, but denies the accusations of his corruption (that is on record! ).

http://www.powned.tv/nieu...rrupt.html

http://www.powned.tv/over...temra.html

[Edited 12/1/11 15:51pm]

Rogues are everywhere, unfortunately.

Yeah but the thing about the music industry is that people like this guy actually believe it's normal what they are doing.

Tremolina said:

The thread link takes me to a thread about Robert Sanchez's "1999" cover.

Not Roger Sanchez again!! (it's an org glyph...)

http://prince.org/msg/8/371548

check that thread out artist 76

Lawd....

Roger has put a spell on the org...

Here is the article

EU High Court Rules Against Webfilters for Music, Videos etc.

The European Court of Justice has ruled (PDF) that Internet service providers cannot be required to install filtering systems designed to block downloads of illegal content, finding that such broad filtering violates the EU’s E-Commerce Directive and could impede legal uses of the Internet and legitimate file transfers.

The case dates back to 2004 when the Belgian company SABAM (which handles authorizing third-party rights to music) found that customers of a local ISP, Scarlet, were downloading music files illegally using peer-to-peer networking services. SABAM brought the case to court, and the Brussels Court of First Instance ordered Scarlet to prevent its customers from sending and receiving any file in SABAM’s catalog.

Scarlet appealed the ruling and now—seven years later—the European Court of First Instance has agreed. The court notes that content providers can request ISPs block access to specific third parties that are infringing on their rights. However, a requirement to filter all users’ online activity to block potentially-illegal content transfer—such as that requested by SABAM—violates the EU E-Commerce Directive, which prevents member states from requiring ISPs to generally monitor the information that traverses their networks.

“Such an injunction could potentially undermine freedom of information since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications,” the court said in a statement.

The court also noted that a general filtering system would be “liable to infringe on the fundamental rights of its customers,” including the right to protect their personal data and receive or impart information—both of which are ensured by the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Consumer rights and Internet freedom advocates have generally welcomed the ruling. “The alternative would have been a decision which would ultimately have put all European networks under permanent surveillance and filtering. This would have had major negative consequences for both fundamental rights and the online economy in Europe,” wrote the advocacy group European Digital Rights, in a statement.

When the case was initially filed, the music industry (along with film, television, and other media) had been looking seriously at requiring ISPs to install filtering software to block illegal transfer of copyrighted material. However, filtering systems represent a tremendous (and costly) technical challenge European countries have expressed a strong reluctance to engage in deep filtering of everyday Internet users’ activities. More recently, the music industry had focused on the path approved by the European Court of Justice: working with ISPs to get specific sites blocked for distributing infringing content.

This article was originally posted on Digital Trends

[Edited 12/1/11 15:02pm]

Tremolina said:

angel345 said:

Rogues are everywhere, unfortunately.

Yeah but the thing about the music industry is that people like this guy actually believe it's normal what they are doing.

Of course they do. The links you've posted in Dutch, the only word I understood was corrupt

NDRU said:

I don't know the details, but I could see that this ruling is fair, since I am a musician and send MP3's and it would certainly be a pain in the ass if I could not send my own files!

It would totally impede on you freedom of information as an artist in fact.

But the music industry doesn't give a crap about little joe's like you.

They want the entire internet/world to bow to their demands.

Only a fool wouldn't see they are digging their own grave.

angel345 said:

Tremolina said:

Yeah but the thing about the music industry is that people like this guy actually believe it's normal what they are doing.

Of course they do. The links you've posted in Dutch, the only word I understood was corrupt

No, but I mean really normal. This trick is used more often by board members of Buma/stemra. They really think there is nothing wrong with it.

NDRU said:

IMO there are two big issues

1. people are stealing music. There are kids who have never bought ANY music, and they don't think they should (because rock stars are rich--backward logic). For some reason DVD's at least implement a base level of copy protection, and it seems to work to discourage some people, but for cd's it's a free for all. Not to mention, DVD's have come down in price, but a new cd is still like $16.99 unless you shop around.

2. Record companies are going for instant gratification rather than cultivating the careers of artists. Today's music is like crack instead of nourishment. So while our pupils are dilated, there are not really any great musicians making the music the music that they want to make. They are pandering to some expectation. There ARE good musicians making top 40 music, but they are in Justin Bieber and Rhianna's bands, not leading their own.

**honorable mention

At the club level, where musicians mature, club/bar owners & people throwing parties/weddings are opting for dj's instead of live music. They are cheaper and know all your favorite songs.

As a result, bands get paid nothing, so what idiot wants to go play for 4 hours to split $50 between 4 band members? Everyone's better off if you pay a dj $50; it draws more people anyway.

But it's missing the personality same as a mom and pop restaurant might not be as good as Chili's but it might be better! You just have to take a chance and find out.

@#2 that's right. Record companies back in the day used to invest in an artist. It wasn't always about that quick hit. If they believed in them they would stick with them. Clive Davis is truly the last of the old record men. Before Clive let an artist hit the scene he would cultivate them, ala Whitney and Alicia Keys.

^

"Back in the day" things weren't that good either. The business model of "back in the day" - that is banking on only a few artists/groups and losing out on the rest - is actually what the industry still relies on these days. They may have been focused on better music and some record companies may in fact have nurtured more true talent, "back in the day", but they certainly didn't have fair contracts then either, nor did the industry ever really give a damn about its customers. Fans were "stealing music" then and now. When we all know who are in fact the biggest thieves.

I agree with your comment on Clive tho'.

[Edited 12/5/11 13:01pm]

Tremolina said:

NDRU said:

It would totally impede on you freedom of information as an artist in fact.

But the music industry doesn't give a crap about little joe's like you.

They want the entire internet/world to bow to their demands.

Only a fool wouldn't see they are digging their own grave.

Yeah that does not seem cool!

It's like banning emails to prevent the plagiarism of published writers.

^

I don't know what you mean really, but I do know that if they would get their way, the internet would be censored. And not just for copyrighted material.

At least not, as long as there isn't any technology that is able to sufficiently distinguish between copyrighted and unprotected material.

One of the most interesting things about the court's ruling is that it seems to take that into account.

Tremolina said:

^

I don't know what you mean really, but I do know that if they would get their way, the internet would be censored. And not just for copyrighted material.

At least not, as long as there isn't any technology that is able to sufficiently distinguish between copyrighted and unprotected material.

One of the most interesting things about the court's ruling is that it seems to take that into account.

ok lets say banning music downloads would be like banning Xerox machines, then, in an effort to get people to buy books

I've got other shaky analogies if that one doesn't work for you

NDRU said:

Tremolina said:

^

I don't know what you mean really, but I do know that if they would get their way, the internet would be censored. And not just for copyrighted material.

At least not, as long as there isn't any technology that is able to sufficiently distinguish between copyrighted and unprotected material.

One of the most interesting things about the court's ruling is that it seems to take that into account.

ok lets say banning music downloads would be like banning Xerox machines, then, in an effort to get people to buy books

I've got other shaky analogies if that one doesn't work for you

lmao

It's worse actually. See, if their wishes would be granted, that would ultimately cause a total ban on all sorts of filesharing and a digital intrusion on the privacy of millions of people. Protected material or not. And not just music, but also audiovisual material (not just protected movies), pictures, writings (not just protected novels) and software (including open source). Moreover, this would even create room for the general and legally accepted idea that, if the internet may be censored in order to protect copyrighted material, why not for even 'bigger purposes'?

And that's only the citizens/consumer/communicator side of it. What about the producers and distributors on the internet that don't want anything to do with this? Their freedom of speech and information would be stiffled too. Being liable for not censoring networks well enough against infringements, ultimately the advance of internet technology would be put to a stop.

[Edited 12/5/11 12:51pm]

The industry always blames the net and downloading, but they don't want to admit they sign artists who make padded albums full of crappy songs that are overpriced. The good stuff is not advertised, the bad overadvertised.

You have Lady GagGag selling an album for 99 cents on Amazon so that she will hit the charts, but most artists cannot afford to sell an album for that price.

The industry is run by MBA bean counters who know next to nothing about music. At least with Warners they had guys working their who understood good music--Madonna, Prince, Van Halen.

Tremolina said:

angel345 said:

Of course they do. The links you've posted in Dutch, the only word I understood was corrupt

No, but I mean really normal. This trick is used more often by board members of Buma/stemra. They really think there is nothing wrong with it.

Now that it's publicized, they should know by now that it's wrong. Correct?

angel345 said:

Tremolina said:

No, but I mean really normal. This trick is used more often by board members of Buma/stemra. They really think there is nothing wrong with it.

Now that it's publicized, they should know by now that it's wrong. Correct?

You think?

Latest news is that mister Gerrits has resigned.

Buma/stemra hopes that this will suffice but an investigation has started into their business.

Also, the composer Melchior Rietveldt, has decided to sue.

And the spokesmen of all the parties in dutch parliament are scrambling for media attention to demand change at Buma/stemra

[Edited 12/8/11 15:52pm]

Tremolina said:

angel345 said:

Now that it's publicized, they should know by now that it's wrong. Correct?

You think?

Latest news is that mister Gerrits has resigned.

Buma/stemra hopes that this will suffice but an investigation has started into their business.

Also, the composer Melchior Rietveldt, has decided to sue.

And the spokesmen of all the parties in dutch parliament are scrambling for media attention to demand change at Buma/stemra

[Edited 12/8/11 15:52pm]

Well, at least they're initiating change, and they're investigating. If they thought this is normal before, they're now enlightened

^

Nothing will really change untill people change

Politicians can change the laws, but they can't change the mentality.

Jochem Gerrits will now simply continue his business as a "music publisher", still ripping off songwriters wherever and whenever he can.

He will just now do it without Buma/stemra. Too bad for his profits, but not fatal for his business.

Buma/stemra itself will just do whatever it can to continue "business as usual". Not too much trouble inside, that's just bad for EVERYBODY's "business".

And the media whoring around with politicians to have another "scoop"? They will be fucking over somebody else tomorrow, with only half of the stort and only half of the truth.

Tremolina said:

^

Nothing will really change untill people change

Politicians can change the laws, but they can't change the mentality.

Jochem Gerrits will now simply continue his business as a "music publisher", still ripping off songwriters wherever and whenever he can.

He will just now do it without Buma/stemra. Too bad for his profits, but not fatal for his business.

Buma/stemra itself will just do whatever it can to continue "business as usual". Not too much trouble inside, that's just bad for EVERYBODY's "business".

And the media whoring around with politicians to have another "scoop"? They will be fucking over somebody else tomorrow, with only half of the stort and only half of the truth.

Couldn't agree with you more. Sounds more like it.